32 replies to this topic

[Unbound Inferno]

Okay, really screwy idea here, but just maybe...

What if we took our current Armor system, but tweaked it? Its not really Battletech after all...

There has been some discussion about setting up Ferro Fiberious to reduce damage, but how about this:

Change the armor system itself so not only do you increase your armor level, but that represents your damage resistance?

Even at 2x Armor as we have now for numbers, no mech can become truly invulnerable - but we just set how to have each mech attain relatively decent durability without guaranteeing its impossible to kill it. Some such as the mighty Atlas becomes feeling seemingly invulnerable, but you can ultimately be killed.

The idea works like this;
Keep the segmented armor.
The number per segment represents your total HP and resistance on that part.
The Torsos are balanced, so the % effectiveness is balanced between them, taking the ammount you put on /max for the effectiveness of it.
The resistance is the reduction in damage taken on that segment.

This leaves certain segments of the mech as a venerable "weak spot" while others become toughened up and harder to tear off.

Take my Catapults for example.
Typically its 18 Head, 60 CT 22 CTR, 40 Torsos and 20 rear with 40 Arms and 50 Legs.
If we do a straight cut as that as damage resistance my CT becomes the most durable, shrugging off 60% 42% damage, and side Torsos only 27%, my Arms and Torsos are somewhat more vulnerable only blocking 40% but my legs cut it in half at 50%. My rear is weak between 5% and 6% while the Heat remains the weakest at 18%.

In theory, changing that I'd double my life expectancy in fights.


Something like an Atlas might need a limit on its Center Torso Armor, or that thing will never break... however its back is as weak as can be, usually.
The Atlas' typical CT of about 100 armor would be able to block 80%, where the rear only covers 5% leaving a weak spot to exploit.

Perhaps not a literal cut on it however then, but have the different tonnages of mechs determine the armor's effectiveness, or tweak it a partial amount, but keep up the basic idea.

Thanks to Artgathan

Artgathan, on 22 July 2013 - 01:43 PM, said:

I meant the armor total per section (not for the entire mech) - so those 100 center armor points would be weighted against the total 124 armor points that the Atlas could potentially have in the CT. This would allow mechs to have comparable levels of "hardness" and increase survivability across the board instead of just in the Heavy / Assault class.

Toying with Tonnage as the value of effectiveness it would leave lights vulnerable while assaults are tough as nails with Mediums and Heavies somewhere in the middle for their worth.

Oh, and I know this'll mean Ammo will need doubling, easy. to 300% ammo for our 200% armor and resistance, at minimum.

EDIT: In this system, Ferro could be used to increase the effectiveness of that resistance too, making it a desired option for some mechs.

Thoughts? Comments? Could this work?
I know its only treating the symptom of fundamental flaws in this game - and in a really crazy way - but still this might be enough... maybe.

Edited by Unbound Inferno, 22 July 2013 - 01:55 PM.

[xDeityx]

I'm sure it could work but it deviates so much from BattleTech and is such a radical change in general to a system that pretty much works as intended that PGI would never go for it.

Kudos for brainstorming, you came up with a pretty good idea. Would the reduced damage then damage the armor, weakening the overall resistance? Or would the reduced damage be applied directly to the internal structure?

[One Medic Army]

I foresee issues with lights being even more fragile relative to assaults.

[3rdworld]

It could be a way to increase the life of mechs with totally out of whack art.

Like: HBK-4G/4P/4H/4J all take 20% less damage to the RT. Or AWS- side torso's take 10% less damage.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Personally I would allow extra armor to be placed in crits giving 16 armor / .5 tons, 1 crit.

so in theory, you could mount 32 more armor on a CT / leg, 16 on a head etc.

There is already a precedent for this, as FF armor shows us that armor protection is capable of being mounted internally.

Edited by 3rdworld, 22 July 2013 - 01:29 PM.

[Artgathan]

This is a very interesting idea. The actual numbers would need to be tweaked though. I'd suggest a system that works based on the percent of the armor equipped on that location rather than the absolute amount of armor on the location (IE: having 32 points of armor on a Centurion's arm would convey more "hardening" - more damage absorption - than 32 points of armor on an Atlas' arm).

In general this would give heavier mechs a disproportionately high level of armor protection, which would be interesting. I'll need to think more on this to fully get to the implications that this change would make.

[Unbound Inferno]

xDeityx, on 22 July 2013 - 01:23 PM, said:

I'm sure it could work but it deviates so much from BattleTech and is such a radical change in general to a system that pretty much works as intended that PGI would never go for it.

Kudos for brainstorming, you came up with a pretty good idea. Would the reduced damage then damage the armor, weakening the overall resistance? Or would the reduced damage be applied directly to the internal structure?

Good question.

I'm inclined to say no - you set the armor's effective resistance - so it just chews down after that.


But seriously. picture-perfect-pinpoint-accurate-alphastrikes-with-an-excessive-heat-threshold-and-crappy-dissipation isn't deviating from Battletech? This can't hurt.

Artgathan, on 22 July 2013 - 01:34 PM, said:

This is a very interesting idea. The actual numbers would need to be tweaked though. I'd suggest a system that works based on the percent of the armor equipped on that location rather than the absolute amount of armor on the location (IE: having 32 points of armor on a Centurion's arm would convey more "hardening" - more damage absorption - than 32 points of armor on an Atlas' arm).

In general this would give heavier mechs a disproportionately high level of armor protection, which would be interesting. I'll need to think more on this to fully get to the implications that this change would make.

So... an Atlas with 600 armor points, 100 center only makes 16%? My Catapult's CT would only be 9%
If we use numbers like that the overall effectiveness drops - not really making an effective counter as intended...

[Sprouticus]

Lights would become even more squishy in relaiton to larger classes. We have enough assault mechs thanks.

[topgun505]

Its an interesting idea although I agree the % reduction would have to be tweaked (maybe make it 1/2 so a 60 armor point section would reduce damage by 30% before damage is applied.)

[Artgathan]

Unbound Inferno, on 22 July 2013 - 01:37 PM, said:

So... an Atlas with 600 armor points, 100 center only makes 16%? My Catapult's CT would only be 9%
If we use numbers like that the overall effectiveness drops - not really making an effective counter as intended...

I meant the armor total per section (not for the entire mech) - so those 100 center armor points would be weighted against the total 124 armor points that the Atlas could potentially have in the CT. This would allow mechs to have comparable levels of "hardness" and increase survivability across the board instead of just in the Heavy / Assault class.

[Unbound Inferno]

Sprouticus, on 22 July 2013 - 01:38 PM, said:

Lights would become even more squishy in relaiton to larger classes. We have enough assault mechs thanks.

As if. Lights are a royal pain to kill - Assaults are easy.

Would hardly be the end result, assuming they ever fix matchmaking and add tonnage limits or team setting of some how for mech chassis.

Personally, I'd rather drive my Cats. Or a Mad Cat. Still waiting on my Marauder... all Heavies, not Assaults. Although IIRC the Mad Cat II is an Assault....

Artgathan, on 22 July 2013 - 01:43 PM, said:

I meant the armor total per section (not for the entire mech) - so those 100 center armor points would be weighted against the total 124 armor points that the Atlas could potentially have in the CT. This would allow mechs to have comparable levels of "hardness" and increase survivability across the board instead of just in the Heavy / Assault class.

Ah, that makes more sense.

My Catapult's CT would be 42%
The Atlas would be 80%

The rears would be woefully weak, but that's the point.

I like that.

[Tor6]

As we all know, Assaults really could use a buff. I mean they're almost never used.

[CeeKay Boques]

Are Ferro Anti-crit slots? For example, if I have ferro, you should have to burn up those "Armor Slots" in my criticals before my good components.

That, and Reflective and Reactive armor have to be on their "future projects" somewhere.

[Ansel]

Damage resistance could be set to a flat rate for all mechs. Each section would receive a % reduction of damage based roughly on the statictic percentages of rolling to hit that section, the more % chance to hit the less % reduction, I think this could be used to keep damage more in line with what BT intended with the current armor sections.

So a table would look like this. (purly example)

Arm/Leg: 0%
LT/RT : 20% reduction
CT : 40% reduction
H : 60% reduction

This would fall in line with the higher chances to hit arm/legs in TT, and thus absorb more total damage before death why do ya think legs and arms have so much total armor when compaired to the LT/RT sections.

It could work, would take a lot of tweaking, and maby be indivuidal between weight classes.

[Unbound Inferno]

Technoviking, on 22 July 2013 - 01:50 PM, said:

Are Ferro Anti-crit slots? For example, if I have ferro, you should have to burn up those "Armor Slots" in my criticals before my good components.

That, and Reflective and Reactive armor have to be on their "future projects" somewhere.

No, this is a basic system.

Ferro in this could be used to increase its resistance more, making it a desirable option.

[Tezcatli]

Well I don't know about that idea. But anything that makes Ferro Fibrous actually a defensive bonus and not just a weight saving bonus, is a good idea. : /

Edited by Tezcatli, 22 July 2013 - 02:18 PM.

[Unbound Inferno]

Yeah, but the idea needs testing more than just brainstorming to see the result.

In theory it works.. in reality? I dunno.

But its not like Assaults and Heavies become instantly unstoppable either. Most deaths Lights do with that are through rear armor coring - and mediums should have an upper edge in mobility still leaving them at an advantage.

This just helps mitigate the main bigger fights a bit better. I hope anyway.

[Aym]

How about instead of flat doubling armor, we double legs and arms, 2.5 side torsos, and 3x ct? Increases Time To Live from coring and also, when/if PGI finally balances DOT/DPS weapons against burst pinpoint damage, it MIGHT increase the battle-techy feel of losing components while continuing to fight.

Heck you can even explain it to new players that the armor on the parts that moves is less protection per ton, while the armor on the most immobile section with no joints is the most durable per ton.

[Unbound Inferno]

Aym, on 22 July 2013 - 02:43 PM, said:

How about instead of flat doubling armor, we double legs and arms, 2.5 side torsos, and 3x ct? Increases Time To Live from coring and also, when/if PGI finally balances DOT/DPS weapons against burst pinpoint damage, it MIGHT increase the battle-techy feel of losing components while continuing to fight.

Heck you can even explain it to new players that the armor on the parts that moves is less protection per ton, while the armor on the most immobile section with no joints is the most durable per ton.

That's kind of what I am trying to do - in a different way.

With each segment determining its own resistance they aren't all buffed the same. The result is that you can loose a Side Torso easier from being shot out at that back than say an Arm if you twisted a bit more.

Most mechs would have tougher legs (relatively speaking) than arms or torsos - so your overall survivability lasts a bit more, but its far from impossible to take something down.

At best, in most average fights it doubles life expectancy, but a good team, concentrated firepower will still kill something fast.


But heay, I am open to alternatives - but would love to try testing it out.

[stjobe]

So, let's see, my maxed-out COM-3A:
Head 18 (18% reduction)
CT 28/16 (18%/6% reduction)
ST 20/14 (12%/6% reduction)
Arms 16 (16% reduction)
Legs 24 (24% reduction)

While that Atlas CT reduces my MLs to 1 point per shot, he gets to shoot his AC/20 at mine for 16 points.

I can't see this as anything other than a nerf to lights and a buff to the already overused fat 'mechs.

Sorry, no go.

Edited by stjobe, 22 July 2013 - 03:19 PM.

[Unbound Inferno]

stjobe, on 22 July 2013 - 03:19 PM, said:

So, let's see, my maxed-out COM-3A:
Head 18 (18% reduction)
CT 28/16 (18%/6% reduction)
ST 20/14 (12%/6% reduction)
Arms 16 (16% reduction)
Legs 24 (24% reduction)

While that Atlas CT reduces my MLs to 1 point per shot, he gets to shoot his AC/20 at mine for 16 points.

I can't see this as anything other than a nerf to lights and a buff to the already overused fat 'mechs.

Sorry, no go.

Try the back. Its a 5% reduction on the rear.

The Side Torsos are only about 55% I think. Side Torso Rear should also be about 5%.

Hardly invulnerable when you can strip it down still.

Edited by Unbound Inferno, 22 July 2013 - 03:34 PM.